On 28/03/2011 6:44 AM, Harryk wrote:
Tim wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss


They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.


Or anyone or anything else. As close as those reactors are to bodies of
water, it would be surprising if radioactive run-off hasn't already
leaked to everywhere it shouldn't.

It has. Radioactive seawater has been identified.

Radioactive water run-off, airborne radiation and the inability to
evacuate large areas - we should be talking about these matters. We're
about 20 miles or so from a nuclear power plant. If there were a problem
there, the roads leading away from it are not capable of handling large
numbers of vehicles, not in any direction. I suspect the same is true
for many of the nuclear power plants in the United States.
The roads around here aren't even capable of handling rush hour traffic.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...?docId=6388143

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/jap...ter-2011-03-27

http://theweek.com/article/index/213...ctive-seawater

I am sure Obama has known this for a week or more. Helicopters have
been turned back because of radiation.

Given plutonium has been found outside of the reactor, the only
explanation is the cores have breached. Iodine is one thing, cesium is
a coating but plutonium means contents.

And I wish they would separate exposure to contamination when discussing
health effects.

Radiation damage is defined as time+intensity+(short)distance.

If you get even one molecule of this crap in you
time+intensity+(short)distance becomes very high in favor of problems.